The Obama Administration thread

[pilferk]

so you agree with Freedom that "real" problem is the Republicans?

No, I think there's plenty of blame to go around.   

But I think they are a part of the problem, yes.  They're playing (predictably) the role of obstructionists.  Which makes the Dems job that much harder, because now they have to get every single Dem and Indie to agree on a course of action.  EVERY Dem and Indie knows that, so is using that sword of damocles to further their own interests. Lieberman is perhaps the most egregious offender...but he's not the only one, by far.

And yes, I think the Repubs know all that, and are using it to their advantage to gain ground, politically. 

It's not an ideal environment to get GOOD legislation passed.

[sandman]

so you agree with Freedom that "real" problem is the Republicans?

No, I think there's plenty of blame to go around.   

But I think they are a part of the problem, yes. 

i agree.

[freedom78]

Looks like the health bill could be an epic fail.  Seems to be a lot of pissed off folks on the Democratic side, especially Howard Dean.  Now looks like they are just passing something just to pass something.  That is unfortunate.  Oh well, what a cluster fuck.  Dems have a majority, and they still can't get what they want.

This "democracy" has become ridiculous.  One side will filibuster everything, so you have to have a supermajority to get anything done.  The other side has a few obstructionists, like Joe Lieberman, who would rather make the front page than do things they're on record as believing in. 

This goes back to Obama to leaving this up to Pelosi and fucking Harry Reid to get it right.  He should have been more heavy handed.  How obvious was it that insurance and prescription drugs both went up to brace for the reduction they were going to get.  Man, we are screwed. 

The last time a President tried to legislate healthcare the Congress got pissy and wouldn't pass it.  I won't make an argument that either Pelosi or Reid is an amazing leader, but they've been in Congress long enough to know process and would generally be better at getting things through than Obama would, on his own.  The real problem is that one side clearly has no respect for the will of the people.  Obama promised health care overhaul, it's been a part of the Democratic platform for decades, and yet when Dems win overwhelmingly the GOP says "but the people don't really want it".  What a fucking crock of shit. 

i think that comment is a little extreme. aren't you just frustrated that your party has all the power and still can't accomplish anything?

the problem is that politicians feel the need to give handouts to all their special interests. so along with the goals that have been laid out, they have to add in all the bullshit. that raises the overall cost, and appears to hurt the potential effectiveness of the bill.

Democrats don't have "all the power" (and they aren't my party, but that's another story).  It's a coalition of 58 Democrats, one of whom was your Pennsylvania Republican not too long ago, and two independents, one of whom is hardly a Democrat, given that he campaigns for and supports Republican candidates.  The Republicans, particularly in the Senate, aren't content to vote in opposition to bills.  Instead, they use procedure on EVERY issue, requiring supermajorities for passage.  I feel confident that the Democrats could get a majority on any bill featuring a strong public option.  However, because the GOP fights cloture on EVERY issue and Lieberman is a Republican in independent's clothing, it becomes impossible to achieve the necessary SUPERmajority to pass a good bill.  So, no, I'm not being too extreme.  Are the Democrats completely inept?  Absolutely.  But despite that, the people have voted 58 Dems into the Senate, 258 into the House, and 1 into the Presidency.  This is plenty large enough for both the passage of good bills and typical Democratic party infighting.  Yet, 40 Republicans and one bitter "independent" are able to say "the people don't want healthcare" and block the process.  Thus, the aforementioned "fucking crock of shit".  And, of course, the bill is now a steaming pile itself, completely toothless where it matters and full of the unnecessary goodies that are all too common in our system.   

[Smoking Guns]

Pilferk, that outline he gave was so damn vague.  The current bill doesn't even have a public option, and a few years ago that was Barak's biggest goal.  He had spoken about the public option for almost 20 years.  Only recently when he saw it was unlikely did he back off.  In my opinion, everyone in congress and the senate needs to be replaced.  They are all worthless now and a lot have been there WAY too long.  It is a joke.  I know Clinton failed back in 1993, but Barack isn't Hilary Clinton either.  We can debate all of this until the cow's come home.  The guy can't devote much time to health care even if he wanted.  He has 2 wars going on, Iran, and the highest unemployment in 30 something years going on.  I am so sick of our bullshit government.

[freedom78]

I am so sick of our bullshit government.

If it makes you feel better, it was designed to be this horribly incapable of creating good, strong laws and policies. 

[pilferk]

Pilferk, that outline he gave was so damn vague. 

Yes, but...that's the way the system is supposed to work.  Guidance IS vague.  He pointed them in a direction.  He stated his preference (but not requirment) for a public option.  They went with that guidance and, it looks like, as bad as the bill is (and how little difference it will make), it still adheres to the guidance he gave.

So it's not Obama's fault.  He can't be more specific without mucking up the entire process.  The legislature, however, is not doing their job.  Some of that is the system, some of it is Senators furthering their own interests or careers, and some of it is Republican obstructionism.   

Obama will take a hit for this....but I don't think it's a FAIR hit.  He's functioned as the president should function.

The current bill doesn't even have a public option, and a few years ago that was Barak's biggest goal.  He had spoken about the public option for almost 20 years.  Only recently when he saw it was unlikely did he back off. 

He stated a preference for a public option.  But, again, what would you prefer he do.  Insist on one, and threaten veto without one?  That's really his only play, and it would be a colossal blunder to do it.  You keep saying you want him to "do something".  How about detailing what, realistically, you think that should be?

In my opinion, everyone in congress and the senate needs to be replaced.  They are all worthless now and a lot have been there WAY too long.  It is a joke.  I know Clinton failed back in 1993, but Barack isn't Hilary Clinton either.  We can debate all of this until the cow's come home.  The guy can't devote much time to health care even if he wanted.  He has 2 wars going on, Iran, and the highest unemployment in 30 something years going on.  I am so sick of our bullshit government.

Barack isn't Hilary, but the system they operated in is fundamentally the same.  The legislature views Congress as their own little fiefdom.  And they get bitter and pissy (and majorly obstructionist) when they see the President "invading their territory".  And, quite frankly, the seperation of powers was set up for a reason...you've got to respect that.  The president shouldn't legislate, Congress shouldn't decide what, ultimately, upholds or violates our Constitution, and the Supreme Court shouldn't command our troops and manage the executive branch. 

I agree, though, that the current setup is causing problems.  I'm not ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but it's starting to be more and more obvious that there needs to be some procedural changes, possibly term limits in the Senate, and that my own state needs to realize Lieberman isn't a "downtrodden dem", but is actually a sheister more interested in his own keister, political career, and influence than he is in doing what's best for his own state.

[Smoking Guns]

I am so sick of our bullshit government.

If it makes you feel better, it was designed to be this horribly incapable of creating good, strong laws and policies. 

You underestimate our founding fathers.  No way in hell could they have imagined all this bs.

[Smoking Guns]

Pilferk, that outline he gave was so damn vague. 

Yes, but...that's the way the system is supposed to work.  Guidance IS vague.  He pointed them in a direction.  He stated his preference (but not requirment) for a public option.  They went with that guidance and, it looks like, as bad as the bill is (and how little difference it will make), it still adheres to the guidance he gave.

So it's not Obama's fault.  He can't be more specific without mucking up the entire process.  The legislature, however, is not doing their job.  Some of that is the system, some of it is Senators furthering their own interests or careers, and some of it is Republican obstructionism.   

Obama will take a hit for this....but I don't think it's a FAIR hit.  He's functioned as the president should function.

The current bill doesn't even have a public option, and a few years ago that was Barak's biggest goal.  He had spoken about the public option for almost 20 years.  Only recently when he saw it was unlikely did he back off. 

He stated a preference for a public option.  But, again, what would you prefer he do.  Insist on one, and threaten veto without one?  That's really his only play, and it would be a colossal blunder to do it.  You keep saying you want him to "do something".  How about detailing what, realistically, you think that should be?

In my opinion, everyone in congress and the senate needs to be replaced.  They are all worthless now and a lot have been there WAY too long.  It is a joke.  I know Clinton failed back in 1993, but Barack isn't Hilary Clinton either.  We can debate all of this until the cow's come home.  The guy can't devote much time to health care even if he wanted.  He has 2 wars going on, Iran, and the highest unemployment in 30 something years going on.  I am so sick of our bullshit government.

Barack isn't Hilary, but the system they operated in is fundamentally the same.  The legislature views Congress as their own little fiefdom.  And they get bitter and pissy (and majorly obstructionist) when they see the President "invading their territory".  And, quite frankly, the seperation of powers was set up for a reason...you've got to respect that.  The president shouldn't legislate, Congress shouldn't decide what, ultimately, upholds or violates our Constitution, and the Supreme Court shouldn't command our troops and manage the executive branch. 

I agree, though, that the current setup is causing problems.  I'm not ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but it's starting to be more and more obvious that there needs to be some procedural changes, possibly term limits in the Senate, and that my own state needs to realize Lieberman isn't a "downtrodden dem", but is actually a sheister more interested in his own keister, political career, and influence than he is in doing what's best for his own state.

Term limits would be great.  Is it time we get rid of the career politician?  Unless they are moving up - Mayor -> Congress person -> Senator -> VP -> President.. etc..  But a 40 or 50 year senator?  Get some new, non corrupt, blood in there. 

[freedom78]

I am so sick of our bullshit government.

If it makes you feel better, it was designed to be this horribly incapable of creating good, strong laws and policies. 

You underestimate our founding fathers.  No way in hell could they have imagined all this bs.

Maybe not Republicans and Democrats, and certainly the filibuster is a creation of the Senate and not of hte Constitution, but the general clusterfuck of American governance was largely intentional.

[zihuatenajo]

Canada rules !     


 

[Annie]

I'm not too happy they are bringing the GITMO prisoners to Illinois. I like Obama as a person, but he has disappointed me this past year.

[Axl4Prez2004]

I am so sick of our bullshit government.

If it makes you feel better, it was designed to be this horribly incapable of creating good, strong laws and policies. 

You underestimate our founding fathers.  No way in hell could they have imagined all this bs.

S Guns...I think you are giving the founding fathers a little too much credit (as most folks do in this country)
If the founding fathers were alive today, they (just like the folks in office in this era) would get eaten alive by the press. 
I was watching a fascinating interview with a historian on C-Span a while back.  He was talking about a historian of the early 19th century who had the goods on all the founding fathers...important documents, diaries, letters, etc.  You know what he did with a lot of it?  He destroyed it.  You know why he destroyed it?  Both because he could, and he knew that's how you create and perpetuate the mythology.  There's no way we can accurately assess the actions of our founding fathers because we don't have the full picture.  We have been sold the fairy tales cherry tree and all.  Now I'm not saying what our founding fathers did in the grand scheme of things was bad (they accomplished a great deal) what I'm saying is that they were not superheroes...they had flaws...those flaws would have been picked apart by the press in today's world...their drug use, womanizing, and hippie hairstyles alone would have assured their being voted out! 

btw, on the term limit thing...term limits sound good on paper, but honestly, as much as I disagree with a guy like McCain on many issues, I don't think he's corrupted.  I honestly don't think most representatives are corrupt, I don't.  You want corrupt?  Look at how other governments operate...you might appreciate ours a little bit more after taking a good look around. 

[freedom78]

I am so sick of our bullshit government.

If it makes you feel better, it was designed to be this horribly incapable of creating good, strong laws and policies. 

You underestimate our founding fathers.  No way in hell could they have imagined all this bs.

S Guns...I think you are giving the founding fathers a little too much credit (as most folks do in this country)
If the founding fathers were alive today, they (just like the folks in office in this era) would get eaten alive by the press. 
I was watching a fascinating interview with a historian on C-Span a while back.  He was talking about a historian of the early 19th century who had the goods on all the founding fathers...important documents, diaries, letters, etc.  You know what he did with a lot of it?  He destroyed it.  You know why he destroyed it?  Both because he could, and he knew that's how you create and perpetuate the mythology.  There's no way we can accurately assess the actions of our founding fathers because we don't have the full picture.  We have been sold the fairy tales cherry tree and all.  Now I'm not saying what our founding fathers did in the grand scheme of things was bad (they accomplished a great deal) what I'm saying is that they were not superheroes...they had flaws...those flaws would have been picked apart by the press in today's world...their drug use, womanizing, and hippie hairstyles alone would have assured their being voted out! 

btw, on the term limit thing...term limits sound good on paper, but honestly, as much as I disagree with a guy like McCain on many issues, I don't think he's corrupted.  I honestly don't think most representatives are corrupt, I don't.  You want corrupt?  Look at how other governments operate...you might appreciate ours a little bit more after taking a good look around. 

I think that's on target.  When looking at the Constitution, it's most prominent features are made up of compromises.  Very little in there was principled belief; rather, there were two or more principled positions, and this is the middle ground.  The Bill of Rights is one of the few truly principled parts of that document, and was the price extracted for ratification.  But the rest?  Mostly compromise.

[Smoking Guns]

You guys are right, they were not perfect, but damn, they had balls, huge balls, to pull off what they did! I am so thankful for them because what they did help create has been pretty damn good for a long time.

[freedom78]

You guys are right, they were not perfect, but damn, they had balls, huge balls, to pull off what they did! I am so thankful for them because what they did help create has been pretty damn good for a long time.

There's no doubt it was a massive improvement, compared with being an exploited colony.  We just shouldn't pretend it was perfection.

[Jim]

... I don't think he's corrupted.  I honestly don't think most representatives are corrupt, I don't.

Ladies and gentlemen, goodnight...

[Dr. Blutarsky]

I'm not too happy they are bringing the GITMO prisoners to Illinois. I like Obama as a person, but he has disappointed me this past year.

He signed the bill to close Gitmo, then been scrambling all year to figure out what to do with them.

Carrot before the donkey...

[Perfect Criminal]

The Dem's health care bill has one fundamental problem with it that has yet to be overcome and that is that we cannot afford it.  When my parents taught me about budgeting, there was one fundamental rule, "do not spend what you do not have".  Both parties are guilty of this, but after signing a mostly useless $787 billion stimulus bill, the Dems now want to put our future generation into an even bigger hole.  Anyone that tells you health care bill is cost neutral is smoking crack.  The republicans are being obstructionists as pointed out before, but with some good reasons.  No one shoudl sign a bill that spends more money and increases taxes and premium of so many.

That being said, the Republicans come up on the correct side of fiscal prudence here and the Dems come up on the right side of the human side of things.  When those two forces are pitted against each other, the fiscal side better win out for the sake of our future generations.  Humanity will always survive, but America can tumble if we lose further ground economically.  When we reach the point where China questions whether they should invest in the USA, that's a red alert.

I am all for health care reform if it starts with tort reform.  Any health care bill that doesn't have tort reform is just spending money we don't have.

[pilferk]

btw, on the term limit thing...term limits sound good on paper, but honestly, as much as I disagree with a guy like McCain on many issues, I don't think he's corrupted.  I honestly don't think most representatives are corrupt, I don't.  You want corrupt?  Look at how other governments operate...you might appreciate ours a little bit more after taking a good look around. 

It's not entirely about corruption (though that's part of it).  It's about power and becoming a product of the system.

If you know you have 2 terms in the Senate, for example, you have no onus to try to perpetuate your career IN the Senate.  You get 12 years...that's it.  You don't need to make power grabs to maintain your position or do "favors" your entire life to get you choice comittee memberships down the road or a million other things you do to try to ADVANCE in your CAREER as Senator.  I'm not necessarily even talking about "corruption". I'm talking about the politicing, favor trading, and "boys clubbing" that goes on in perpetuity around the Senate. That CULTURE is simply bad for productive legislation getting passed.  It gives too easy a base for simply playing it safe or being an obstructionist when your party is not in power. 

 In addition, you don't have to pay lip service to lobbys and special interest groups because you're only going to have to run for re-election ONCE.  You can, instead, focus on doing your job.  You don't need nearly as much of their support or money because while running for re-election CAN be expensive, PERPETUALLY running for senate is untenable without corporate "sponsorship". 

Term limits for the Senate would be, IMHO, one of the best things to happen to our legislature.

[pilferk]

The Dem's health care bill has one fundamental problem with it that has yet to be overcome and that is that we cannot afford it.  When my parents taught me about budgeting, there was one fundamental rule, "do not spend what you do not have".

A lesson that the vast majority of our credit card wielding society should learn.  But they haven't yet.  And I'd argue that our country needs real health care reform (and make no mistake, this is a very small baby step toward that...and not a perfect one, at that) a lot more than my fellow countrymen need that 2nd 46 inch LCD, for the bedroom, that went on the Visa card on Black Friday.

  Both parties are guilty of this, but after signing a mostly useless $787 billion stimulus bill, the Dems now want to put our future generation into an even bigger hole. 

Define "mostly useless".  Most economists are actually saying that we're seeing some of the effects of that stimulus bill now, with projected effects to continue thorugh mid 2010.  The quesiton isn't whether it was effective (it was) but whether it will be prolongedly effective.  If you define it as "mostly useless" because you think the effects from the bill won't last pas mid-2010, and we'll be right back where we started....I can see your point.  I don't necessarily agree, but there's evidence in both directions so can at least see your basis.

If, however, you mean "mostly useless" in that it was wholly ineffective....evidence says otherwise.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34452363/ns/business-personal_finance//

And, at the end of the day, it was like the healthcare bill now being offered up: It was FULL of compromise.  Again, that is at least partially because of the Repubs...first to try to get them to vote for it, and then to ensure they had enough votes to get it passed with slim (to no) Repub support and past philibuster. 

Anyone that tells you health care bill is cost neutral is smoking crack.  The republicans are being obstructionists as pointed out before, but with some good reasons.  No one shoudl sign a bill that spends more money and increases taxes and premium of so many.

Cost neutral?  Probably not.  BUT, it's also not nearly as expensive as the Repubs would have you believe.  "Cost neutral" doesn't mean we're not increasing spending...it means the bill has to, within it, carry provisions to pay the cost.  This bill DOES do that, based on projections (though I'm still waiting on the non-partisan Budget office to weigh in...have they??).  In reality?  Probably not...but maybe close enough to be worth the additional costs.

On the Repubs...don't delude yourself into thinking their objections are anything but what they are:  Politicing and trying to revive their party from the disastrous '08 elections.  They're not being obstructionist based on "good reason".  Good reasons exist...I agree.  The Repubs (and we're talking about the ones serving in Washington, not the rank and file members of the constituency) aren't doing anything but paying lip service to them.  They're jockeying for position, putting on a show for the American voter, and hoping this endeavor fails so they have leverage/ammuntion for 2010.  That's the sum total of their objections, and it will be their sum total for the next few months when they vote as a massive block to delay anything productive from happening in the legislature.

We'll have to see if it works, or if it backfires.  But they're so desperate after 2008 that it's really the only viable political option open to them.

That being said, the Republicans come up on the correct side of fiscal prudence here and the Dems come up on the right side of the human side of things.  When those two forces are pitted against each other, the fiscal side better win out for the sake of our future generations.  Humanity will always survive, but America can tumble if we lose further ground economically.  When we reach the point where China questions whether they should invest in the USA, that's a red alert.

I think, actually, you need to strike a nice balance between the two.  Which probably tells you a lot about why I'm a registered independant (and NO, I didn't vote for Leiberman.   ).  And we can't forgo progress because you have a set of "doom and gloom" republicans sounding like the guy outside of the capital building who is always sounding the end of the world.     You're right, though...the United States CAN tumble if we lose  ground further economically.  My question is this:  What do you think will cause more harm?  Additional taxes, levied against goods and services (and wage earners) who can more likely afford them?  Or out of control health care costs that are putting into serious financial jeopardy the working and middle class of the country?   Contrary to popular belief, those costs don't just evaporate when people can't pay them.  They get their wages attached...and suddenly they can't pay their mortgage, or their credit card bills, or all the other things that spur our consumer driven economy on.

I'm not sure the answer is as cut and dry as you suppose it is.

I am all for health care reform if it starts with tort reform.  Any health care bill that doesn't have tort reform is just spending money we don't have.

I agree.  To really address our health care system, torte reform needs to occur.   The bill before the Senate is a TINY little imperfect baby step. I'd guess we're going to see some tweaks and twists as it gets rolled out to further refine the bill.  I think, down the road, they're going to HAVE to address tort as part of the package....and until they do, there are going to be some issues at large.

I'm not going to shout from the mountaintop about this bill.  It's a bit bloated for my tastes.  It leaves out some very important pieces that I think need to be addressed.  But, in this case, I agree with something Clinton just said (and I think quoted from someone else): "You can't let perfection be the enemy of progress".  This is, IMHO, progress.  Hopefully, there is more to come.